LHMU v Achieve Cleaning Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LHMU v ACHIEVE CLEANING SERVICES PTY LTD [2010] FMCA 362
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Wilful breach of Workplace Relations Act – appointment of bargaining agent pursuant to s335 WRA – penalty – matters relevant to quantum of penalty.
Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth)
Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 443
Barnard John Cooper v Director Liquor Licensing [1999] WASCA 1021
Beckwith v R (1976) 135 CLR 569
CF Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia (2005) 47 IR 462 Chew v R (1992) 173 CLR 626
Dickinson v Fletcher (1873) LR 9 CP 1
Krakouer v R (1998) 194 CLR 202
Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19
National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Central Queensland University [2008] FCA 481
R v Adams (1935) 53 CLR 563 at 567 – 568
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
Re HPC Productions Ltd [1962] 1 CH 466
Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129
Rojos v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] FCA 1585
Tabe v R (2005) 79 ALJR 1890
Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1
Applicant: LIQUOR HOSPITALITY & MISCELLANEOUS UNION
Respondent: ACHIEVE CLEANIING SERVICES PTY LTD
File Number: BRG 168 of 2009
Judgment of: Burnett FM
Hearing date: 12 June 2009
Date of Last Submission: 24 June 2009
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 26 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Reed
Solicitors for the Applicant: Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Coveney
Solicitors for the Respondent: HWL Ebsworth

ORDERS

  1. That pursuant to section 407(1) and section 407(2)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act the respondent pay a pecuniary penalty fixed in the sum of $11,000.00 for contravention of section 335(3) of the Workplace Relations Act.

  2. That pursuant to section 841 of the Workplace Relations Act the penalty imposed on the respondent pursuant to Order 1 herein be paid to the applicant.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 168 of 2009

LIQUOR HOSPITALITY & MISCELLANEOUS UNION

Applicant

And

ACHIEVE CLEANING SERVICES PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. In late 2008 Achieve Cleaning Services Pty Ltd (Achieve) was proposing a new Employee Collective Agreement (ECA) for its employees many of whom were employed at the Anglo Coal Mine at Moura, Central Queensland.  One of Achieve’s employees was Peter Sawyer.  He had commenced employment with Achieve in about July or August 2008 and was employed as a cleaner on a casual basis.  On 14 November 2008 he joined the applicant, Liquor Hospitality & Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) and from around that time acted as the LHMU delegate at the mine.

  2. In early 2008 Mr Sawyer became aware that Achieve was proposing a new ECA.  On 9 December he contacted Ben Jones (Jones), an LHMU official, and requested of Jones that the LHMU act as Mr Sawyer’s bargaining agent in relation to the proposed ECA.  Jones acknowledged and accepted that request. 

  3. On 10 December 2008 Jones caused a letter…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read LHMU v Achieve Cleaning Services Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] FMCA 362
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of LHMU v Achieve Cleaning Services Pty Ltd was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the union, LHMU, alleged that the respondent had contravened certain provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. The dispute centred on whether the respondent, a cleaning services company, had failed to comply with the requirements for paying wages and superannuation to its employees.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had breached section 335(3) of the Workplace Relations Act by not ensuring that it paid its employees their wages and superannuation in full and on time. The court was required to determine if the evidence presented demonstrated a clear contravention of the act and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate and in line with the act's provisions.

The court found that the respondent had indeed contravened section 335(3) of the Workplace Relations Act, as the evidence showed that employees were not paid their wages and superannuation correctly. The court considered the nature of the contravention, the respondent's conduct, and the need for deterrence and compliance with the act. The court concluded that a pecuniary penalty of $11,000 was appropriate and ordered the penalty to be paid to the applicant, the LHMU, as per section 841 of the Workplace Relations Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That pursuant to section 407(1) and section 407(2)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act the respondent pay a pecuniary penalty fixed in the sum of $11,000.00 for contravention of section 335(3) of the Workplace Relations Act.

2.

That pursuant to section 841 of the Workplace Relations Act the penalty imposed on the respondent pursuant to Order 1 herein be paid to the applicant.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.